updated 11:50 am EDT, Sat August 1, 2009

FCC probes Google app

AT&T on Saturday issued a brief initial response to Federal Communications Commission letters of inquiry sent to Apple, AT&T and Google on Friday regarding their roles in the rejection of Google Voice-enabled apps. Addressing concerns that it may have denied the apps to exclude a service that provides lower-cost long distance and SMS without using its data network, AT&T spokesman Brad Mays flatly denied any link between AT&T and decisions made by Apple as to which apps are allowed on the App Store, instead putting the responsibility on the iPhone maker. A larger response is said to be forthcoming.

"AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store," Mays said. "We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it."

The letters asked Apple and AT&T if the carrier pressed Apple into declining the recent Google voice app. The FCC also asked Google to explain Google Voice and detail which apps have been approved or denied in the past, such as Google Earth and Google Mobile App.

AT&T's statement contradicts its own stance on iPhone apps in the past. It was previously responsible for limiting SlingPlayer for iPhone to using Wi-Fi for streaming the feed from a remotely connected Slingbox. It was only released on the App Store after AT&T specifically modified its terms of service to exclude use of SlingPlayer over 3G on iPhones, calling them "personal computers" but not making a similar provision for BlackBerries and other similarly competitive handsets.

The letters are a part of a larger FCC investigation into the access to exclusive phones for rural customers when they aren't serviced by the relevant carriers in their areas.

To date, neither Apple nor Google have issued public responses to the FCC letters.

Typical for AT&T to point the finger at the other guy.In any case, Apple should reverse there decision as it wouldn't hurt there business and it would finally make texting free like it should have been all along.

AT&T is still up to its old tricks. They were a dishonest company when the government broke them up in the early 80s and they're still crooked. That's why I refuse to buy an iPhone until there's one from another carrier.

Seriously, Verizon as a company isn't any better. But, in my area at least, they seem to have better coverage. I know that AT&Ts is expanding/improving rapidly since the iPhone first came out.

There's a bigger story here and I'm really curious what it is. Is it possible that AT&T is having all these issues b/c of the rapid increase in data traffic since not only the intro of the iPhone, but also the general increased number of smart phones and wireless PC connects that seem to be the norm more and more? Has anyone put together any numbers on the type of traffic on individual carrier networks?

I'm bumping into more and more people with iPhones recently, it's starting to look like the number if iPods.

Seriously, Verizon as a company isn't any better. But, in my area at least, they seem to have better coverage. I know that AT&Ts is expanding/improving rapidly since the iPhone first came out.

There's a bigger story here and I'm really curious what it is. Is it possible that AT&T is having all these issues b/c of the rapid increase in data traffic since not only the intro of the iPhone, but also the general increased number of smart phones and wireless PC connects that seem to be the norm more and more? Has anyone put together any numbers on the type of traffic on individual carrier networks?

I'm bumping into more and more people with iPhones recently, it's starting to look like the number if iPods.

I think you are making something out of nothing here. AT&T's remarks are a classic 'non-denial, denial" IMO. They did not, as the headline says, "deny blocking Google apps," they merely said they aren't involved in the app store decisions. That doesn't mean they don't have a contract with Apple that says that Apple should keep the network free of certain types of traffic.

Apple could easily be the only one "in charge" of denying apps at the app store, but they could still be using criteria from their contract with AT&T to do so. I don't see anything in the statement that makes it a categorical denial at all.